War: Strategy or Bravado

Page 1 of 1

myviewpremIF-Sizzlerz

Look at any war be it Vitenam who defeated US, Allies who defeated Axis in World War 2 etc its all won on strategy.

The next most important thing in a war is - what is the cause you are fighting for?

Ex: US(Allies) attacked Saddam Hussein and even Iraq people supported them against saddam as he was so feared and cruel that they wanted to get rid of him and have freedom

Same is case of many other wars where insiders only supported against their country as they hate the leader like Taliban led Afghanistan and US(Allies) war

In many cases there is covert support to enemy against own country, army or state by citizens as they are fed up of the atrocities

In 16th century war was never about morals and providing freedom like in 21st century. It was more of gaining more territory and becoming more rich and powerful. It was more about prestige or defending ones own territory.

Lets look at this Akbar V/S Pratap war

Mewar was one of the few states that refused to bow down and accept the leadership of Akbar's Mughal empire. Akbar already had large part of Afghanistan, north india, pakistand,, Bangladesh etc under him. He wanted the entire rajputhana under him too.

There were three reasons for this basically

1) We must remember in history Rani Karnavati sent a rakhi to Humayun to save her kingdom besieged by Bahadur Shah the Gujarat ruler. Humayun left his campaign and proceeded to Chittor. Whether he purposely delayed reaching or was truly late but she already had committed jauhar. Anyways once Humayun came to chitter he chased the Gujarat ruler Bahadur Shah and gave back kingdom to her son Vikramaditya Singh(brother of Udai Singh). Chittor felt Humayun purposely delayed and led to Karnavati death(that is what Udai Singh and Pratap believe) and Mughals felt Akbar lost Mughal empire to Sher Shah Suri because he left to help karnavati against wishes of Mughal nobels(Like Humayun brothers Kamran and Askari etc). Add to that Akbar's grandfather Babar defeated Rana Sangha the grand father of Pratap. So this war for Akbar and Pratap are not purely regarding land and kingdom its a personal family fight where Akbar feels that Humayun was wrongly accused by chittor after helping so much at personal cost and Pratap thinks Akbar's father was reason for grandmom karnavati's death. This is one angle playing on boths mind.

2) The second reason is the trade route of central asia- if mewar is defeated and in mugahl control the trade route shall open up

3) Akbar's ambition to have entire sub continent under his control especially Rajputhana

These are three major reasons for the current war

What I fail to understand is neither Pratap has done many strategy or Akbar himself has many one's up their sleeve. Akbar is relying on his huge army and Pratap on bravado. Neither can win a war. So why are makers not showing the real strategy behind this war etc instead of showing this false bravado.

Pratap going and challenging Akbar with a 40000 army standing behind him alone is disaster in real war. He would have been felled by a single arrow or bullet if he did that in real.

Remember how the siege ended Akbar shot at one of the commanders and his death forced them to open the gates and fight. So Pratap must think of strategy to save his family and citizens instead of flowing in emotional bravado.

Lets wait and watch if some strategy is devised

How much the relation between family changes through generations can be seen between Mughals and Mewar Royal family.

But Babar after defeating Lodi kept Delhi and agra for himself rather than give it to Rana Sangha

- Humayun and Karnavati - no enemity, friendly relation, humayun helped her son become king instead of claiming kindom to himself as his army had defeated bahadur shah who had upsured mewar and even risked losing Mughal empire for helping infidels as per Mughal nobels, commander and brothers

- Akbar and Pratap - Eternal enemies(Family and personal enemity)

- Jehangir and Amar Singh- Family enemies(nothing personal) fighting war of their fathers, once Jehangir defeated amar singh he gave back kingdom, no longer enemies

KaanaGoldie

Hi there, Good thoughts. Thanks for sharing. Yes, Pratap's jump from the fort and daring such a big army is foolish and Ajbar retreating is even more foolish- these are possible only in shows, which only leaves the viewers disappointed anyway.

In this show, more than a strategist, Akbar is shown as a worried one and Pratap shown as an emotional one - both of which were not per history.

bitblueIF-Dazzler

Its all politics. issue of mugal in hind was getting bigger as they did started forcing people to convert to Islam. previously they use to come to north India robe all gold and jewels and use to go back but babar started trend of not going back.

myviewpremIF-Sizzlerz

Its all politics. issue of mugal in hind was getting bigger as they did started forcing people to convert to Islam. previously they use to come to north India robe all gold and jewels and use to go back but babar started trend of not going back.

not really did you forget qutub udin aibak, khiliji, lodi, shah, suri etc they all stayed back never went back

conversion was always there - in Mughals only Aurangzeb was keen on mass conversion and babar, shah jahan and Akbar initially rest did not bother to do much of conversion. If they were serious on conversion by now indian continent would be a muslim continent, like entire Roman empire became roman catholic because emperor converted or japan china became buudist because their emperor converted. But in indian continent the religion was never seriously imposed by any rulers who ruled - else indian continent would have become budhist under ashoka, Christian under alexander, muslim under Mughals, Din e illahi under Akbar, Christian under british etc. All co habituated and all religions were by and large respected by majority rulers thru ages. Yes few definetly tried but gave up or failed to impose one religion on the people.

With Akbar it was mostly not religion it was more to acquire more land become more powerful have more continent under him. Initially he imposed conversion, sharia and jaziya etc but by age 25 he had stopped using religion tool and by 35 years of age gave it up as he himself started having doubts on all religion and found din e illahi. Of course for political reasons he reimposed jaziya then withdrew or asked to demolish a temple etc but it was all politics never religion.

Every ruler in this world has usually had issues with religious heads- british monarch fought with pope and declared himself head of Church in Britian, Akbar also declared himself clashed with muslim clerics etc rulers usually only think of ruling and to gain control on people use religion as tool. Look at ghenghiz khan he had 4 sons his eldest became emperor of Russia and became Christian because it was Christian predominated state, chatagi his second son was made ruler of middle east and accepted islam, his 3rd and 4th sons ruled from china so accepted buddism as religion. Ghenghis Khan himself followed some native religion of Mongolia. He was never an muslim as the Europeans potray him, in his lifetime he never accepted islam as religion ever. So kings only bother of expanding kingdom and ensure their sons rule next gen they give a damn to religion usually and use it as tool for gain.

Check these Celebrity also

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.